UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,650,210
`Issue Date: January 19, 2010
`Title: REMOTE VEHICLE DIAGNOSTIC MANAGEMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RALPH WILHELM, JR., PH.D.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00415
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2013-00415 - Ex. 1011
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,650,210
`Issue Date: January 19, 2010
`Title: REMOTE VEHICLE DIAGNOSTIC MANAGEMENT
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF RALPH WILHELM, JR., PH.D.
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00415
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2013-00415 - Ex. 1011
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`
`
`
`I, Ralph Wilhelm, Jr., Ph.D., hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am currently the President of Wilhelm Associates, LLC, a consulting
`
`firm that I founded in 2001. The firm specializes in automotive electronics,
`
`telematics, systems engineering, data communications between systems and devices,
`
`and product/market and business strategies. In this role, I provide advice and
`
`assistance in the development and use of market assessment methodologies, product
`
`requirement definitions, product design, product and market strategy, and product
`
`implementation in my areas of technical expertise.
`
`2.
`
`I have over forty years of professional experience in the field of
`
`automotive technologies and systems, with an emphasis on vehicle diagnostics,
`
`telematics, and active safety technologies. Further, I have authored dozens of
`
`published technical papers and delivered several keynote addresses concerning
`
`automotive electronic systems. In addition, I am a named inventor on three issued
`
`U.S. patents directed to methods of constructing automotive sensors: U.S. Pat. No.
`
`4,244,798; U.S. Pat. No. 4,253,931; and U.S. Pat. No. 4,303,490.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from
`
`Cornell University in 1967, a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Ceramic Engineering
`
`from Rutgers University in 1972, a Master of Business Administration degree in
`
`Operations and Strategy from the University of Michigan in 1987, and an Executive
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Management Program certificate from the University of Illinois in 1985.
`
`4.
`
`I was a Senior Research Scientist from 1971 to 1978 at General Motors
`
`Research Laboratories. Thereafter, from 1978 to 1984, I worked in General Motors
`
`Corporation’s AC Spark Plug Division as the Supervisor and Department Head of
`
`Materials Development.
`
`5.
`
`From 1984 to 2001, I worked at the AC Spark Plug Division and Delphi
`
`Delco Electronics Corporation, having held various positions. I was the Department
`
`Head of Advanced Instruments & Display from 1984 to 1989. Next, from 1989 to
`
`1994, I was a Director of Advanced Development/Systems Integration. In this role, I
`
`oversaw the design and development of automotive technology systems, including,
`
`for example, a precursor system to the OnStar telematics system, navigation systems,
`
`advanced engine control systems, night vision systems, millimeter wave-based radar
`
`systems, and digital audio systems. From 1994 to 1997, I was a Vice President of
`
`Engineering for Asia/Pacific, and oversaw product launches for audio, powertrain
`
`control, and security systems, as well as the co-development of advanced systems with
`
`vehicle manufacturers. From 1997 to 2001, I was a Product Line Manager in the
`
`Mobile Multi-Media Systems division. In this role, I managed product lines covering
`
`telematics, navigation, RSAV, and DSRC systems, some of which were later acquired
`
`and installed in vehicles.
`
`6.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached hereto, and it includes a listing of
`
`my prior experience in litigation matters as an expert.
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ASSIGNMENT AND MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`7.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,650,210 (“the ’210 patent”), No. IPR2013-00415.
`
`8.
`
`I am not an employee of Toyota Motor Corporation (“Toyota”) or any
`
`affiliate or subsidiary thereof.
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $500 per hour. My
`
`compensation is in no way dependent upon the substance of the opinions I offer
`
`below, or upon the outcome of Toyota’s petition for inter partes review (or the
`
`outcome of such an inter partes review, if a trial is initiated).
`
`10.
`
`I have been asked to provide certain opinions relating to the patentability
`
`of the ’210 patent. Specifically, I have been asked to provide my opinion regarding (i)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’210 patent pertains and (ii) the
`
`patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18.
`
`11. The opinions expressed in this declaration are not exhaustive of my
`
`opinions on the patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18. Therefore, the fact
`
`that I do not address a particular point should not be understood to indicate any
`
`agreement on my part that any claim otherwise complies with the patentability
`
`requirements.
`
`12.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have reviewed (i) the ’210 patent and its
`
`prosecution history; and (ii) prior art to the ’210 patent, including
`
`(a) U.S. Pat. No. 5,400,018 to Scholl et al. (“Scholl”);
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) U.S. Pat. No. 5,157,610 to Asano et al. (“Asano”);
`
`(c)
`
`Japanese Patent Publication No. H01-197145 to Ishihara et al. and
`
`a translation of the same (“Ishihara”);
`
`(d) U.S. Pat. No. 4,675,675 to Corwin (“Corwin”);
`
`(e) U.S. Pat. No. 5,531,122 to Chatham et al. (“Chatham”);
`
`(f) U.S. Pat. No. 4,926,331 to Windle et al. (“Windle”); and
`
`(g) Mogi, “Prospects for Failure Diagnostics of Automotive
`
`Electronic Control Systems,” Leading Change: the Transportation
`
`Electronic Revolution: Proceedings of the 1994 International
`
`Congress on Transportation Electronics, pp. 477-488, Oct. 1994
`
`(“Mogi”).
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’210 PATENT
`
`13. The ’210 patent names David S. Breed as its sole inventor. It is entitled
`
`“Remote Vehicle Diagnostic Management.” The ’210 patent states that it was filed on
`
`August 14, 2006, and issued January 19, 2010. The ’210 patent also identifies itself as
`
`a continuation-in-part of numerous other applications, the earliest of which is U.S.
`
`App. No. 08/476,077, which was filed June 7, 1995 and issued as U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,809,437.
`
`14. The ’210 patent generally relates to a vehicle with a diagnostic system
`
`that determines whether any of a plurality of a vehicle components is operating non-
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`optimally, is expected to fail, or has failed. (’210 patent, col. 3, ll. 22-30.)
`
`15. The patent provides a variety of examples of components that can be
`
`monitored and diagnosed by the vehicle’s diagnostic system. These components
`
`include, for example:
`
`Engine; transmission; brakes and associated brake assembly; tires; wheel;
`steering wheel and steering column assembly; water pump; alternator;
`shock absorber; wheel mounting assembly; radiator; battery; oil pump;
`fuel pump; air conditioner compressor; differential gear assembly;
`exhaust system; fan belts; engine valves; steering assembly; vehicle
`suspension including shock absorbers; vehicle wiring system; and engine
`cooling fan assembly.
`
`(Id. at col. 10, ll. 12-19.)
`
`16. According to the ’210 patent, the diagnostic system may employ a
`
`processor and multiple sensors. A variety of different types of sensors can be used,
`
`including:
`
`Airbag crash sensor; microphone; camera; chemical sensor; vapor
`sensor; antenna, capacitance sensor or other electromagnetic wave
`sensor; stress or strain sensor; pressure sensor; weight sensor; magnetic
`field sensor; coolant thermometer; oil pressure sensor; oil level sensor;
`air flow meter; voltmeter; ammeter; humidity sensor; engine knock
`sensor; oil turbidity sensor; throttle position sensor; steering wheel
`torque sensor; wheel speed sensor; tachometer; speedometer; other
`velocity sensors; other position or displacement sensors; oxygen sensor;
`yaw, pitch and roll angular sensors; clock; odometer; power steering
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`pressure sensor; pollution sensor; fuel gauge; cabin thermometer;
`transmission fluid level sensor; gyroscopes or other angular rate sensors
`including yaw, pitch and roll rate sensors; accelerometers including single
`axis, dual axis and triaxial accelerometers; an inertial measurement unit;
`coolant level sensor; transmission fluid turbidity sensor; brake pressure
`sensor; tire pressure sensor; tire temperature sensor, tire acceleration
`sensor; GPS receiver; DGPS receiver; and coolant pressure sensor.
`
`(Id. at col. 10, ll. 26-44.)
`
`17.
`
`In some circumstances, the output produced by the ’210 patent’s
`
`diagnostic system may be a “fault code” relating to the non-optimal operation of any
`
`vehicle component. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 55-58.)
`
`18. The vehicle also includes a communications device that is coupled to the
`
`diagnostic system to allow the vehicle to transmit the output of the diagnostic system
`
`to a remote location. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 22-30.) The communications device may be a
`
`cellular telephone system. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 36-37.) The remote location that receives
`
`transmissions from the vehicle can be, for example, a vehicle dealer, vehicle
`
`manufacturer, or maintenance facility. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 38-42.) The ’210 patent also
`
`provides that the communications device can automatically transmit diagnostic
`
`information to the remote location without manual intervention. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 34-
`
`37.)
`
`19.
`
`In addition to transmitting diagnostic information, the ’210 patent
`
`explains that a vehicle can also include a display in the vehicle’s passenger
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`compartment that displays an indication of the non-optimal operation, failure, or
`
`expected failure of any of the components. (Id. at col. 3, ll. 61-65; Fig. 4.) Similarly,
`
`the vehicle may include a warning device that provides the vehicle’s operator with a
`
`warning relating to the non-optimal operation, failure, or expected failure of
`
`components of the vehicle. (Id. at col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 2.)
`
`20. As noted above, I have also reviewed the prosecution history of the ’210
`
`patent.
`
`IV. CLAIMS OF THE ’210 PATENT
`
`21. The ’210 patent includes 22 claims. Claims 1 and 15 are independent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 are at issue in this
`
`inter parties review. These claims are reproduced below for reference:
`
`1. A vehicle, comprising:
`a plurality of components;
`a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to determine whether any of
`said components is operating non-optimally, is expected to fail or has
`failed and generate an output indicative or representative of the
`determination of the non-optimal operation, expected failure or
`actual failure of any of said components; and
`a communications device coupled to said diagnostic system and arranged
`to direct a transmission of the output of said diagnostic system to a
`remote location such that the output indicative or representative of
`the determination of the non-optimal operation, expected failure or
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`actual failure of any of said components generated by said diagnostic
`system is transmitted to the remote location.
`
`2. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein said communications device is
`arranged to automatically direct the transmission of the output of said
`diagnostic system to the remote location without manual intervention.
`
`5. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein said diagnostic system comprises a
`plurality of vehicle sensors mounted on the vehicle, each of said vehicle
`sensors providing a measurement related to a state of said vehicle sensor
`or a measurement related to a state of a mounting location of said
`vehicle sensor and a processor coupled to said vehicle sensors and
`arranged to receive data from said vehicle sensors and process the
`received data to generate the output of said diagnostic system.
`
`7. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes a passenger
`compartment, further comprising a display arranged in the vehicle in a
`position to be visible from the passenger compartment, said display
`being coupled to said diagnostic system and arranged to display an
`indication of the determination of the non-optimal operation, failure or
`expected failure of any of said components.
`
`9. The vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a warning device coupled
`to said diagnostic system for relaying a warning to an occupant of the
`vehicle relating to the non-optimal operation, failure or expected failure
`of any of said components.
`
`13. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein said diagnostic system is arranged to
`generate a fault code relating to the non-optimal operation of any of said
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`components, said communications device being arranged to transmit the
`fault code to the remote location.
`
`15. A method for monitoring components of a vehicle, comprising:
`mounting sensors on the vehicle, each sensor providing a measurement
`related to a state of the sensor or a measurement related to a state of
`a mounting location of the sensor;
`processing data from the sensors using a processor to generate output
`indicative or representative of failure or expected failure of any of the
`components; and
`directing the output indicative or representative of the failure or
`expected failure of any of the components to a remote location using
`a transmission device.
`
`18. The method of claim 15, wherein the vehicle includes a passenger
`compartment, further comprising: arranging a display in the vehicle in a
`position to be visible from the passenger compartment; and displaying
`the output indicative or representative of the failure or expected failure
`of any of the components on the display.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`23.
`
`In rendering the opinions set forth in this declaration, I have considered
`
`what one of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be the broadest reasonable
`
`construction of the ’210 patent’s claim terms.
`
`24.
`
`I note that the ’210 patent provides express definitions for two claim
`
`terms. In particular, the term “component” of claim 1 is defined to mean “any part or
`
`assembly of parts which is mounted to or a part of a motor vehicle and which is
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`capable of emitting a signal representative of its operating state.” (Id. at col. 10, ll. 6-
`
`9.) The term “sensor” of claims 5 and 15, is defined to mean “any measuring,
`
`detecting or sensing device mounted on a vehicle or any of its components including
`
`new sensors mounted in conjunction with the diagnostic module in accordance with
`
`the invention.” (Id. at col. 10, ll. 20-25.) I have applied these definitions when
`
`assessing the ’210 patent in view of the prior art.
`
`25.
`
` With respect to the other terms in the ’210 patent’s claims, I have
`
`applied the plain and ordinary meaning of those claim terms when comparing the
`
`claims to the prior art.
`
`VI.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`26.
`
`In my opinion, claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 are all unpatentable and
`
`invalid as either anticipated by or obvious over the prior art.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated when a single piece of
`
`prior art describes every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
`
`inherently, and arranged in the same way as in the claim. For inherent anticipation to
`
`be found, it is required that the missing descriptive material is necessarily present in
`
`the prior art. I understand that, for the purpose of an inter partes review, prior art that
`
`anticipates a claim can include both patents and printed publications from anywhere
`
`in the world.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable and invalid if the subject
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art of the claimed subject matter as of the time of the invention at issue. I
`
`understand that the following factors must be evaluated to determine whether the
`
`claimed subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`difference or differences, if any, between each claim of the patent and the prior art;
`
`and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent was filed. Unlike
`
`anticipation, which allows consideration of only one item of prior art, I understand
`
`that obviousness may be shown by considering more than one item of prior art.
`
`Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that so-called objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness, also known as “secondary considerations,” like the following are
`
`also to be considered when assessing obviousness: (1) commercial success; (2) long-
`
`felt but unresolved needs; (3) copying of the invention by others in the field; (4) initial
`
`expressions of disbelief by experts in the field; (5) failure of others to solve the
`
`problem that the inventor solved; and (6) unexpected results. I also understand that
`
`evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope
`
`with the claimed subject matter.
`
`A.
`29.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`I understand that a patent must be written such that it can be
`
`understood by a “person of ordinary skill” in the field of the patent.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that this hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`considered to have the normal skills and knowledge of a person in a certain technical
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`field, as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand that factors that may be
`
`considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`
`education level of the inventor; (2) the types of problems encountered in the art; (3)
`
`the prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are
`
`made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active
`
`workers in the field. I also understand that “the person of ordinary skill” is a
`
`hypothetical person who is presumed to be aware of the universe of available prior
`
`art.
`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, in June of 1995, a person with ordinary skill in the art
`
`with respect to the technology disclosed by the ’210 patent would have at least a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or
`
`another technical field as well as two to three years of work experience in connection
`
`with automobile electronics and telematics.
`
`32. Based on my experience and education, I consider myself (both now and
`
`as of June 1995) to be a person of at least ordinary skill in the art with respect to the
`
`field of technology implicated by the ’210 patent.
`
`B.
`Scope and Content of the Prior Art
`33. The scope and content of the prior art as of June 1995 would have
`
`broadly included vehicle electronics, diagnostics, and communications (including
`
`automobile, truck, airplane, train, and other vehicle electronics, diagnostics, and
`
`communications).
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, one of ordinary skill in the art as of June 1995, would
`
`have considered Scholl, Asano, Ishihara, Chatham, Corwin, Windle, and Mogi to be
`
`within the same technical field as the subject matter set forth in the ’210 patent.
`
`Further, all of these references would have been considered highly relevant prior art
`
`to the claims of the ’210 patent.
`
`C.
`
`35.
`
`Scholl Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 of the ’210
`patent
`
`Scholl issued March 21, 1995 and was filed December 22, 1992. As a
`
`result, I understand that Scholl is prior art to the ’210 patent pursuant to at least 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e), because it was both published and filed prior to the
`
`earliest June 1995 filing date listed on the face of the ’210 patent.
`
`36. While Scholl is one of the references listed on the face of the ’210
`
`patent, based on my review of the patent’s prosecution history, I note that Scholl was
`
`not referenced or relied on by the examiner in rejecting or analyzing the claims.
`
`37.
`
`Scholl generally relates to vehicles with “diagnostic systems and
`
`advanced sensor arrays.” (Scholl, col. 1, ll. 6-9, 19-23.)
`
`38. The disclosed system can be applied to, for example, work vehicles at a
`
`“mine site” or “a fleet of highway transportation trucks” that “operate over a larger
`
`less-defined area.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 40-51; col. 3, ll. 13-17; Figs. 1, 2.)
`
`39.
`
`In my opinion, Scholl discloses all the elements of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13,
`
`15, and 18 of the ’210 patent.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 1
`
`40.
`
`Scholl discloses a “vehicle.” In particular, Scholl explains that its system
`
`and method “may be adapted to relay information from a fleet of vehicle situated at a
`
`work site 102, for example a mine site. For simplicity, two hauling vehicles 104,106
`
`are shown….” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 45-48.) Further, the “invention may be adapted to a
`
`fleet of highway transportation trucks.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 13-15.)
`
`41.
`
`Scholl discloses a “plurality of components.” In particular, Scholl
`
`explains that vehicles include “electronic control modules (ECM),” including ECM
`
`that control a “vehicle’s engine or transmission.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 18-25.) Scholl also
`
`makes reference to an “[e]ngine,” “[o]il … pump,” “[i]ntake [m]anifold,” “[e]xhaust,”
`
`“[b]rake,” and other components. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 5-21.) Further one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have understood that a hauling vehicle and a highway transportation
`
`truck would include all the components traditionally found in a motor vehicle.
`
`42.
`
`Scholl discloses “a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to
`
`determine whether any of said components is operating non-optimally, is expected to
`
`fail or has failed and generate an output indicative or representative of the
`
`determination of the non-optimal operation, expected failure or actual failure of any
`
`of said components.” In particular, Scholl explains that each of the vehicles it
`
`discloses includes a “monitor 210” that can be “microprocessor based. The monitor
`
`210 receives data from a plurality of sources on the vehicles. The types of sources
`
`include sensors and electronic control modules (ECM).” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 18-22.) This
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`monitor 210 is programmed with “diagnostics” and “prognostics” (id. at col. 3, ll. 52-
`
`53), and produces a “fault code” if a component failure is detected or predicted. (Id.
`
`at col. 4, ll. 5-25.) Scholl’s “monitor 210” is shown in Figure 2 (gray has been added
`
`to this and the other Figures I cite for emphasis):
`
`
`Additionally, Figure 3 shows the monitor receiving signals from vehicle sensors,
`
`applying diagnostics and prognostics, and generating fault codes as a result:
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`(See also id. at col. 2, ll. 58-59.)
`
`43.
`
`Scholl discloses “a communications device coupled to said diagnostic
`
`system and arranged to direct a transmission of the output of said diagnostic system
`
`to a remote location such that the output indicative or representative of the
`
`determination of the non-optimal operation, expected failure or actual failure of any
`
`of said components generated by said diagnostic system is transmitted to the remote
`
`location.” In particular, Scholl explains that each vehicle includes “[a] transceiver 214
`
`[that] provides communications between the monitor 210 and the satellite
`
`communications network 212.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 39-41.) This transceiver 214, which
`
`is connected to the monitor 210, is shown in Figure 2:
`
`
`
`
`
`Scholl further explains that when “a fault is detected,” a “fault code is produced” by
`
`the monitor that “gives an indication of the conditions of the fault.” (Id. at col. 6, ll.
`
`15-20.) This fault code is then “transmitted over the satellite communications link
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`212 to a remote location.” (Id. at col. 6, ll. 15-22.) This is shown in the flowchart of
`
`Figure 8:
`
`
`
`(See also id. at col. 2, ll. 40-41.)
`
`
`2.
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 2
`44. Claim 2 of the ’210 patent depends on claim 1 and further requires a
`
`“communications device … arranged to automatically direct the transmission of the
`
`output of said diagnostic system to the remote location without manual intervention.”
`
`Scholl discloses all the elements of this claim. As noted above in connection with
`
`claim 1, when Scholl’s system detects a fault, a fault code is produced and immediately
`
`transmitted to a remote location. (Id. at col. 6, ll. 15-22; Fig. 8.)
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`3.
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 5
`45. Claim 5 of the ’210 patent depends on claim 1 and further requires a
`
`“diagnostic system [that] comprises a plurality of vehicle sensors mounted on the
`
`vehicle, each of said vehicle sensors providing a measurement related to a state of said
`
`vehicle sensor or a measurement related to a state of a mounting location of said
`
`vehicle sensor and a processor coupled to said vehicle sensors and arranged to receive
`
`data from said vehicle sensors and process the received data to generate the output of
`
`said diagnostic system.” Scholl discloses all the elements of this claim. In particular,
`
`Scholl explains that each vehicle “may include a variety of sensors.” (Id. at col. 3, ll.
`
`48-53.) Further, signals from these sensors are input into a “monitor 210” that “is
`
`microprocessor based.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 18-29.) As explained above in connection
`
`with claim 1, this “monitor 210” processes the sensor signals, applies prognostics and
`
`diagnostics, and outputs a fault code relating to existing or predicted component
`
`failures. (See also id. at col. 4, ll. 5-25; col. 5, ll. 5-26; Fig. 3.)
`
`
`4.
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 7
`46. Claim 7 of the ’210 patent depends on claim 1 and further requires a
`
`“vehicle [that] includes a passenger compartment,” and “a display arranged in the
`
`vehicle in a position to be visible from the passenger compartment, said display being
`
`coupled to said diagnostic system and arranged to display an indication of the
`
`determination of the non-optimal operation, failure or expected failure of any of said
`
`components.” Scholl discloses all the elements of this claim.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`47.
`
`In particular, Scholl depicts various work vehicles in Figure 1, and
`
`various trucks in Figure 3. All of these vehicles (like any other vehicle) include a
`
`passenger compartment.
`
`48.
`
`Scholl’s display is shown in Figure 7:
`
`
`As can be seen, this display is located in the vehicle. Further, the display is connected
`
`to the vehicle’s “monitor 210” both because it is located in the vehicle, and because it
`
`displays information that travels along a communications path that originates from
`
`the vehicle’s monitor, continues to the remote location, and then returns back to the
`
`vehicle for display. Further, as shown, Scholl’s display displays “repair instructions”
`
`relating to the diagnosed or predicted vehicle component fault. (See also id. at col. 3, ll.
`
`42-46; Fig. 9.)
`
`
`5.
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 9
`49. Claim 9 of the ’210 patent depends on claim 1 and further requires “a
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`warning device coupled to said diagnostic system for relaying a warning to an
`
`occupant of the vehicle relating to the non-optimal operation, failure or expected
`
`failure of any of said components.” In my opinion, Scholl discloses all the elements
`
`for the same reasons I described above in connection with the “display” element of
`
`claim 7.
`
`
`6.
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 13
`50. Claim 13 of the ’210 patent depends on claim 1 and further requires a
`
`“diagnostic system [that] is arranged to generate a fault code relating to the non-
`
`optimal operation of any of said components,” and a “communications device being
`
`arranged to transmit the fault code to the remote location.” Scholl discloses all the
`
`elements of this claim. In particular, Scholl explains that its “monitor 210 produces a
`
`fault code in response to predetermined conditions in the diagnostics” or
`
`“prognostics.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 5-25.) In other words, a fault code will be produced
`
`whenever the monitor determines that a vehicle component has failed, or predicts that
`
`a component will fail in the future. Further, Scholl explains that after “a fault code is
`
`produced,” it is “transmitted over the satellite communications link 212 to a remote
`
`location.” (Id. at col. 6, ll. 15-22.) As I explained above in connection with claim 1,
`
`the production and transmission of fault codes is also depicted in both Figures 3 and
`
`8.
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 15
`
`51.
`
`Scholl discloses a “method for monitoring components of a vehicle.” In
`
`21
`
`
`
`particular, Scholl explains that its vehicle includes “a monitor 210” that “receives data
`
`from a plurality of sources on the vehicle[].” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 18-21.)
`
`52.
`
`Scholl discloses “mounting sensors on the vehicle, each sensor providing
`
`a measurement related to a state of the sensor or a measurement related to a state of a
`
`mounting location of the sensor.” In particular, Scholl explains that the vehicle
`
`includes “a variety of sensors.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 48-50; see also col. 3, ll. 20-29; col. 5, ll.
`
`5-27; Fig. 3.) Further, one of ordinary skill in the art that these sensors provide
`
`measurements relating to the sensor state or the state of the sensor’s mounting
`
`location.
`
`53.
`
`Scholl discloses “processing data from the sensors using a processor to
`
`generate output indicative or representative of failure or expected failure of any of the
`
`components” for the same reasons I described above in connection with the
`
`“diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle” element of claim 1.
`
`54.
`
`Scholl discloses “directing the output indicative or representative of the
`
`failure or expected failure of any of the components to a remote location using a
`
`transmission device” for the same reasons I described above in connection with the
`
`“communications device” element of claim 1.
`
`
`8.
`Scholl Discloses All the Elements of Claim 18
`55. Claim 18 of the ’210 patent depends on claim 15 and further requires a
`
`“vehicle [that] includes a passenger compartment” and “arranging a display in the
`
`vehicle in a position to be visible from the passenger compartment; and displaying the
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`output indicative or representative of the failure or expected failure of any of the
`
`components on the display.” In my opinion, Scholl discloses these elements for the
`
`same reasons I described above in connection with the “passenger compartment” and
`
`“display” elements of claim 7.
`
`56.
`
`Scholl discloses for the same reasons I described in connection with
`
`claim 7.
`
`D. Asano Anticipates Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, and 18 of the ’210
`patent
`57. Asano published October 20, 1992. As a result, I understand that
`
`Asano is prior art to the ’210 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it
`
`published more than one year before the earliest June 1995 filing date listed on the
`
`face of the ’210 patent.
`
`58. While Asano is one of the references listed on the face of the ’210
`
`patent, based on my review of the patent’s prosecution history, I note that Asano was
`
`not referenced or relied on by the examiner in rejecting or analyzing the claims.
`
`59. Asano generally relates to a “vehicle” with “detectors for determining
`
`operating conditions of [the] vehicle and controllers … for varying operating
`
`conditions.” (Asano, Abstract.)
`
`60.
`
`In my opinion, Asano discloses all the elements of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 13,
`
`15, and 18 of the ’210 patent.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`1.
`Asano Discloses All the Elements of Claim 1
`61. Asano discloses a “vehicle.” In particular, Asano references an
`
`“automobile.” (Id. at col. 1, ll. 15-18.)
`
`62. Asano discloses a “plurality of components.” In particular, Asano
`
`describes an automobile with an “engine, transmission, steering, [and] suspension.”
`
`(Id. at col. 1, ll. 62-65; see also col. 5, ll. 41-46.) Further one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have understood that an automobile, as described in Asano, would have
`
`included all the components traditionally found in a motor vehicle.
`
`63. Asano discloses “a diagnostic system arranged on the vehicle to
`
`determine whether any of said components is operating non-optimally, is expected to
`
`fail or has failed and generate an output indicative or representative of the
`
`determination of the non-optimal operation, expected failure or actual failure of any
`
`of said components.” In particular, Asano provid
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
